3. The Sequence: Do companies really go through each phase in an order?

Critical AssessmentHypothesesBirth phaseGrowth phaseMaturity phaseRevival phaseDecline phaseFindings/ConclusionSummary of the publicationH1: over the initial four life cycle phases, the situation of the firm changes so as to increase the complexity of its administrative task.

H2: these situational challenges must be met by an increasingly sophisticated and complex organizational structure, information processing apparatus, and decision-making style.

H3: organizations alternate between innovative phases and conservative ones – between phases that renew or establish organizational competences (birth, growth and revival), and those that exploit them through efficiencies (maturity and decline).HypothesesData used: based upon books, corporate annual reportes, articles from Fortune and other magazines

Limitations: - Selected firms have already undergone several phases - Younger firms might show different paths - Only large and well-known companies - Length of analyzed period differs

Potential data distortion - Historian might inaccurately report the events- The authors might inaccurately interpret the report 1. Unorthodox dataWhen looking at the organization life cycle theory, how do you think you could apply the different theories of contingency, resource dependency, institutional and so on?

Extension of the model: - Question the amount of phases: 5 – 4 – 3 - What to do with companies who do not evolve through phases? - Use of a statistical technique to test the progression hypothesis (the sequence)

Results: - Support of the progression hypothesis depends on the importance of firms which stay in the same phase (high: sequential, low: tendency rather than imperative)- More support for 4-3 phases in the model2. A reanalysis Christensen & Poulfelt (2006): Managing Complexity and Change in SMEs: Frontiers in European Research. ISBN-13: 978-1845429089.

Shortcomings of the biologic model: Edith Penrose (1952): ‘We have no reason what so ever for thinking that the growth pattern of a biological organism is willed by the organism itself. On the other hand, we have reason for thinking that growth of a venture is willed by those who make the decisions’ (Penrose, 1952, P.808).Tornatzky et al. (1983, p.19) questions the stages by saying that these models are an intellectual tool to simplify the complexity of the processes, but which says very little about the underlying patterns of decisions and actions. Melin (1992): ‘stage models fundamentally disregard individual differences ‘

3. DiscussionCritical AssessmentSummary of the publicationWhat could be the possible relation between the formation of networking strategies and the corporate life cycle? Question 2Question 3What is the effect of technical evolutions on the corporate life cycle? 1/4/13/20/26235678910111214151617181921222324The EndThank you for your attention ! Sources

Levie, Jonathan. 2008. From “Stages” of Business Growth to a Dynamic States Model of Entrepreneurial Growth and Change. University of Strathclyde. [Online] August 2008. https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/departments/huntercentre/research/workingpapers/media_146530_en.pdf.